Subject: Re: [boost] [msvc] #warning preprocessor directive
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-17 16:59:42
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Hmmm - the appeal to me of such a standards committee proposal would be
> the the fact that it's just a minor variation on static_assert.
Traditionally, the standard doesn't specify any warnings. It only
distinguishes between three types of programs:
- ill-formed, diagnostic required
- ill-formed, no diagnostic required
although now that there's precedent for a construct whose purpose is to emit
warnings, namely, the 'deprecated' attribute, the committee may be willing
to consider including something like static_warning.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk